Cameron Harris (L3 Creative Media): Factual Programming

Factual Programming - Theory

After analysing a study completed by OFCOM (who conducted consumer research into the most popular genres of TV in the UK) it is clear factual programming/documentaries are the 3rd highest viewed on TV/ Video on Demand and online services such as BBC Iplayer. Although, this category is one of the most viewed in the UK, a whole series of problems are generated in the creation of pre production stages. These problems ranged from accuracy problems I.E getting a fact wrong such as saying Winston Churchill was born in 2011; when actually he was born in November 1874.

(Image from)

Accuracy

The term accuracy in factual programming means that any facts or figures presented to the audience are of quality, precision and are correct. This means all research and pre production into the field of the chosen subject area, whether its a news report on "red meat causes cancer" or a documentary on the Pyramids of Egypt, has to be fully backed up and well investigated. Things such as speaking to experts (often scientists or people with degrees in niche subjects), going out and completing first primary research through surveys and vox pops and not just taking the first fact thats presented. If you do not fully research your area well enough then inaccuracies in your data and incorrect facts are likely to be broadcast.

However, this creates a huge amount of problems. For a start all factual programmes, especially the news, have to be accurate otherwise the audience is being mislead. Depending on the context, this can further snowball out of control and cause mass panic. Take this clip from the BBC news for instance:

The first thing that could create problems is the catch line for the news piece, "Could Cannabis Oil Cure Cancer?". Without watching the piece you can already tell that the piece will need to have solid facts and backings of medical scientists. If not the general public are being mislead by the fact that cannabis oil cures cancer; therefore by using Cannabis you will be cured by a life threatening disease. Which may have a knock on effect of more people using Cannabis, all because the presented piece was not accurate or fully developed. Luckily, the report is backed up one of the worlds leading cancer doctors, who also helped cure Lance Armstrong, has strong evidence that Cannabis helps cancer patients recover. Other back ups is the use of tests on lab animals such as mice, published lab reports and human trials. This sort of thing can also be seen with recent news stories.Say a store has just been robbed, they will interview an eye witness or the police who where on site in order to get credible and accurate information. They wouldn't go and ask someone who lives miles away to describe what has just happened as they were not on site. So by having the right interviewees can also prevent inaccurate/ false information from being presented.

Another example is the revealing of who Jihadi John is:

In the piece, the name of the male who is Jihadi Jon was revealed alongside his accomplices. However, if the information wasn't accurate then someone who is innocent could of been wrongly accused of murder and terrorism because of a mistake in factual programming. The inaccuracy could of also lead to a man getting wrongly abused and even killed which is very extreme over a very simple mistake. Although, not all factual programmes have been accurate:

In 2012, Lord Robert Mcalpine was involved in a libel law feud as it was alleged he was a peadophile and a child abuser. This feud began in 2012 when Mcalpine was said to be involved in a North Wales child abuse scandal, which the BBC Newsnight claimed was a "Senior Conservative; although no names were mentioned several rumours began and Mcalpines name started to appear on social networking. Although the people who were commissioned to write the story were not aiming to name McAlpine the guardians states: "they were not pursuing new evidence against Lord McAlpine, nor did they intend to name him. The goal was to look at the failings of previous police investigations and the supposed failure of an official inquiry into the scandal "

(Image from)

It occurred after a debate in the Oxford Union, people there were Michael Crick who was Channel 4's political correspondent and Iain Overton BIJ's editor amongst others. Overton began to boast about how Newsnight was about to expose a senior Tory as a pedophile. Crick pushed Overton who revealed the name as Lord McAlpine. Overton took to social media and tweeted "If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a pedophile."

The final statement made on the show was "A Newsnight investigation into the abuse of boys at children's homes in Wales can reveal that two victims say they suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years." The day after the broadcast the Guardian news paper denied the rumors and made clear that McAlpine was a victim of mistaken identity ,although they didn't reveal his name. A week after McAlpine went on to say that the victim , Messham , was mistaken and the allegations were false. This was confirmed by Messham after seeing a photo of McAlpine and stated he was not the abuser. As a result of this the director general,George Entwistle , resigned and the BBC paid £185,000 in damages. Which means that we as a UK citizen were fined as we publicly fund the BBC.

Not only were the BBC fined, but ITV also. As "This Morning" presenter Phillip Schofield handed a list of alleged peadohiles to David Cameron who was being interviewed at the time. But the list was a name of rumoured names that came from the internet. It was said that some of the names on the list could be seen when viewers pressed the live pause button.

Although, this story had only come out after the Newsnight broadcast. If this programme hadn't made the story out to the public then the matter would of never escalated. ITV, Schofield and McAlpine settled the libel claim and apologised and paid £125,000 in damage costs. Although the fact did not include the name of Lord McAlpine the way the show presented to alleded peadofile was done in a inaccuarate way. As viewers were figuring out who it was from the fact "at the hands of a leading Conservative politician from the Thatcher years." which links libel slander in with accuracy. Not only did an innocent man get involved in a sex scandal, ITV had to pay a huge fine because of inaccuracy, further adding to the list of problems accuracy can create.

Also, because the audience is watching a factual piece they know to expect facts and figures; not opinions. Which makes them more likely to trust in what is being said to them. If a programme is pulled over for being inaccurate then viewers will begin to mistrust the network and could lower the ratings for that channel. Branding that programme as having a low credibility. Which would result in a lose of profit for the production teams, networks and those involved. As we saw in the news piece all of the content spoken by the presenter is scripted. He may not of wrote what he's saying; which means he has no reason not to say what he's told. Which is why the facts need to be checked and clarified before production. Another big area of factual programming that relies on accurate information is any documentary, as again the audience is trusting on the information that is being fed to them. If the viewer is new to a topic area, then they are more likely to be fooled by false facts and figures which they could take through live believing to be true.

If it was a documentary based on lifestyles and it presented something that states it improves your life expectancy; when in fact its true can have physical effects to the audience. As they have misled the audience in a way of thinking which has reduced their health because they listened to inaccurate information; which again is why accuracy is really important for the "ignorant" consumer who might not know better.

(Image from)

In order to prevent accuracy from becoming a problem in the future, channels set up guidelines for producers to follow. For instance, Channel 4 has a whole section on Viewer Trust and state: "Channel 4 has a bond of trust with its audience and a duty to ensure that viewers are not deceived or misled by our programmes. "

Last of all it is important that accuracy must come before speed. Which means no matter how long it take to build a news piece, documentary of other factual programme the detail and the facts make the story. Which pays of more for the audience and production company as they have attained quality through the facts and figures. As a great Old West lawman once said:"Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything".

Balance

Balance is looking at a topic from both sides of the argument. Think of a TV programme as a law suit, you don't just hear from the victim you hear both accounts of those involved. This way both sides get a fair representation which the audience (or jury) decide which is the side for them. This being said both sides of the argument should be accurate and fair otherwise problems referenced previously could occur. One of the main reasons there is balance in factual, is to stop glorification. This means targeting one area and will often not focus on the other topic.

Take the subject of Middlesbrough for example. A factual programme exploring the area could explore all the negative sides of the area; which would put of tourists and audiences. As they are only seeing the harmful and highly negative side without exploring the good in the town. By doing this you are making the audience believe what your telling them, as there are no counter arguments against your view,which may well be biased. (See later on for more detail).

By segregating a show by a biased opinion the relevant facts get took out of the mix and the programme will be lacking in quality. The audience will then notice this and brand the programme as favoring one thing other another.This can easily be avoided by remaining neutral and fair by not including an opinion on a topic; unless its a member of the public doing a vox pop or an expert being interviewed. Most factual programmes will have conclusions which will sum up both sides neatly at the end. Some shows may end on the side they think is right, although there should be plenty of information throughout that applies to both sides of the subject area. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV:

During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided. This is normally the case as any extreme misleading and bias products are checked through the channel guidelines and OFCOM.

However, there are times when programmes are more unbalanced than others. Take this BBC documentary on "Confronting racism face to face"

One of the biggest problems is that the show is more favored to the victims of racism and not the people who are targeting black people. The whole documentary is presented from the a black women Mo Asumang, a victim of racism, This makes the show become biased because she is talking from a personal point of view where she has strong opinions. For instance one of the questions she asks a German racist states: " What do you plan for people like me" which favours the questions more to the fact they are racist and not why. To reduce the bias, and make it more balanced a presenter who has nothing to do with the subject could of asked "Why do you use derogatory terms towards black members of the public?" which would then widen the subject focus. The show also mainly focuses on all those who are racist with only one person who is against the idea. If there was more focus on both sides, instead of the main idea of everyone is racist in Germany than the show would have a more developed area of interest.

Another good example of media being biased is Fox news. Which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is also in charge of the global media crossover Newscorp.

(Image from:)

As we can see from the Image, not only does News Corp own several factual programming companies, but various forms of other media. Because the company is so big, they have a big influence on the audience by acting as a "mouth piece" for the government, which can have devastating effects. This can have negative effects as the viewers/listeners are being bombarded with one view point, and since media is huge around the world, companies can be in total control. It is known that Fox news has a political bias towards the Republicans as they voice more new stories favoring them and more negative reports towards the Democratic party. Which is huge unbalancing in the way it delivers its content. Although, this is allowed in the USA due to the programme being privately owned, Compared to the UK which has the state owned BBC. Which has to be impartial and fair to all political party's are is its funded by the general public who deserve a wide range of views points for a massive audience. As everyone in the UK must pay for a TV license which funds the BBC.

This is ultimately seen during the following clip (see link for details)

(Image from)

The video explores Bill Maher an American political satirist (whose job is to pull apart and shame individuals, governments, society and large corporations. I.E Fox news). He notices how that fact that the bias of Fox news is creating an America where Americans are no longer questioning the facts for themselves. Because they are listening to what is in front of them. Due to the fact that Fox News is unbalanced and bias he notices how this is becoming an concerning problem. For a full transcript and the video check the link here.

My last two examples also look into politics. The first is a standard episode of Question Time:

The topic from the clip is reviewing the recent debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, The panel that are disusing the topic are all from different political backgrounds so through debate and arguments both sides are explored. In this episode they have the conservative education secretary; leader of the Scottish labour party; leader of the welsh nationalist party and a tv presenter/newspaper columnist. Because there is a wide range of people from different political backgrounds and a host to keep them in line; they can fully dig into what each other is saying. This means that there is no bias as the host does not set the questions, and the panelist are from different areas so there are no direct pairings between the panelist. I.E two people don't go in from the same party agreeing with each other. The questions are then delivered to the panel through either an email or text from the TV audience, or a member of the general public who is in the audience. This also means that the panelists do not come in prepared for set questions and makes the response natural and balanced. If it were bias and unbalanced then only one party would be on the panel and they would already be prepared for questions.

My last example is the debate mentioned in Question Time:

The debate involved David Cameron and Ed Miliband being separately grilled with tough questions by Jeremy Paxman. To keep it balanced and fair both pairs were interviewed at separate times both with the same time and same level of hard questioning. The show would of become unbalanced if they only focused on one party and the questions were adapted to make one party look better than the other. If this had of happened then the audience would favor one side other another due to the way the programme was set up. And with such an important subject, all TV broadcasts have to be fair in order to prevent corruption in voting for a leader. To keep it legal and legitimate everyone gets a fair share of grilling without them being together.

Again, like question time the audience was the general public who have no involvement in the government. After the grilling/ or before the political leaders where questioned by the general public on subjects that were no set in stone. For instance one member of the public asks David Cameron: "Will you appoint a cabinet minster for the older people" Which was of a concern for the public, not including in Paxmans grilling. To make the choice of the viewers even more fair to what is being presented in the balance program the comments have been disabled on Youtube. Finally I end this section with a quote from Stephen Colberty another political satirist: "The media promises to report on reality. But we know that reality has a well known liberal bias "

Impartiality

Impartiality is linked very closely to balance. As by being impartial you do not favour one side over the other; instead being unbiased by taking no side. Which is how it links in very closely to balance, as by having a balance you are then also being unparial by being on a fair and neutral standing. This also means opinions and prejudice are taken out of the mix; for instance if you were doing a documentary on Asian culture you would keep an open mind to the subject instead of using stereotypes and derogatory terms. Due to the fact you would then be moving into dark territory which is no longer balanced and fair as you have a partial motive.

This can then go on to be seen as controversial by the audience who can then go and complain to the regulatory bodies such as OFCOM. So in order to please the public factual programmes aim for high standards when it comes to the concept of impartiality.By having an open mind and no bias towards a subject; you can really pull out the facts and narrative of a story in a fun and presentable way. Although there has been a few times when a programme has been deemed controversial due to harmful comments. Take the "Factual programme" Top Gear for example during the main factual part of the program, the news section, the trio are looking at a recent car that was created in Mexico. However, instead of talking about the facts and figures of the car they targeted the fact it was created in Mexico which left many fans feeling insulted about their comments. In order to keep it fair and neutral they could of talk about the car itself rather than insulting Mexicans as a whole.

(0-0:21)

Impartiality also means that viewers can make up their minds about a subject without having the show to do that for them. This is why news reporters will read from auto cues as they are worded in a way to be facts and not opinions. Because to make an impartial judgement you have to gather all the relevant and accurate research and present them properly. By bringing in an opinion or judgement the audience begins to lose trust as they suspect a bias viewpoint. A really good documentary that shows impartiality is "Supersize V Superskinny" instead of going with media trends and saying all people that have bad diets end up overweight; the show explores how overweight and underweight is caused by poor diets.

Not only does the show discuss how over eating in snack foods can cause medical conditions such as being over weight; but by not eating enough of the required nutrients it can have over long terms effects. Such as being medically underweight. Which helps tackle the main issues people associate with diet; as if you say you have a bad diet to a typical person they presume you are eating too much fats and carbohydrates. When in fact you might not be eating enough carbohydrates or minerals which could cause mental conditions such as anorexia or bulimia. They manage to do this by having the pair switch diets in a medically supervised environment. They then follow a healthy eating plan set in place by medical experts before checking the weight gain/loss.

Again, using things such as sticking to the same plan, in the same environment for the same time help keep up the consistencies not only in the terms of science but in terms of media. As you can see both sides going through the change without focusing on only one of the two. Impartial also covers discrimination as well as prejudice, covering concepts and themes such as race, hair color, social norms and religion. Which is why both sides are crucial to be shown in a programme so the show does not get backlash from the viewers.

Another good example of a factual TV show that is impartial is "The Moaning of Life" which is a travel based documentary with Karl Pilkington. The show follows Karl exploring topics he has given to though to throughout his life. These topics include themes such as marriage and death. Every week he would explore different countries in order to explore how the world explores the traditions.Because Karl has no previous knowledge he has no bias in the facts or figures as we explore the learning process with him.

Although, he gives his opinion every now and again it is a reflective process before and after to sum up his experiences. Whilst the actual facts and figures take place when he speaks and explores the traditions in various countries. For instance he takes part in a blind marriage in India and through a fly on the wall sort of style we see how he copes with the various traditions set in place by cultures. If he was biased we would only see one form of one tradition, in one country alongside of an opinion why, which could of included insults to those who take part in that style of wedding. Which would of caused controversy, upsetting the audience. Instead we see him explore arranged marriage in India, drive in weddings in Las Vegas and a social media style wedding in Banglore. Showing his full respect to different races without being prejudice or discriminatory. For more instances on impartial programmes, see balance for more detail.

(Image from)

My quote for this section is from one of Louis Theroux documentaries, a man who has become known for getting the best of the eccentric, "Louis Theroux - When Louis Met - The Hamiltons" . After dealing with interviewing members of the KKK, female body builders and porn stars, Louis had to deal with one of the hardest subjects yet. The Hamiltons. A former corrupt Tory member Neil Hamilton, known for taking bribes, alongside his wife were falsely accused of raping and indecently assaulting her to gain money and a celebrity status.

Louis wanted to explore the area, before the trial, although he had no idea where the couple stood and whether it was true or not. Louis states: "As a journalist I had to remain impartial". If he hadn't of remained impartial then he could of been responsible for getting the pair falsely arrested with the evidence of his documentary. Instead he carefully approaches the subject and gets an idea of their life before hand and the lead up to the false arrest by the police. He becomes a part of the couple as he follows them around in their now chaotic lives. By not speaking directly to the camera, instead operating the camera and speaking to the couple, he does not give his opinion on whether they are guilty or not. Instead he focuses on how the pair are handling it and not whether they did it or not. Link for video.

Objectivity

Objectivity is a judgement based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices to certain topics. Which in general means: "Striving (as far as possible or practicable) to reduce or eliminate biases, prejudices, or subjective". Which is generally done by supplying the audience with true facts in a balanced manner. Other wise they would be failing into subjective territory (making judgement on opinions and impressions.) This concept is generally applied to subjects where audiences don't have to think much about the topic area; instead they are being taught something interesting. Whereas subjective pieces will get the audience thinking, as the opinions provided will be looking past the facts. Objective factual programmes still look at things form both sides but stick to facts rather than opinions. Leaving the audience to form their own opinion on the subject rather than making an opinion of others judgments.

Objectivity can easily be seen in the News. As the reporter has to be unbiased and show a story from a fair point of view as there job is to inform the audience with facts. Take this news story for example:

When the reporters are presenting a news piece they leave the opinions to those involved in the story rather than themselves. This is so they have no bias or subjecting over the matter which allows the audience to make their own choice. As you cannot force an opinion in the news, otherwise you are misleading the audience. Instead reporters will offer facts and statistics alongside the interviews/vox pops. If we look at the frame 3:03, on screen is the cost of a single flat-rate payment which is a fact from the department for work and pensions as so stated in the bottom left of the screen. This already helps face any problems when gathering a presenting the facts. As if you have an objective programme and your telling made up facts, it is again misleading the audience. Facts also have to be correct as we saw in the accuracy section earlier on. So by having the source on screen the audience can see that what the News is telling them is credible. Facts are also interlined within the reporters with every fact being linked to a credible source. In this case certain facts come from independent economists and the institute of fiscal studies.

One of the things to notice is that no matter what the story is the news reader has to say those facts without branding his opinion; which for some people is hard to do. They may not enjoy doing this but it is a requirement for the job. Not only is the news a good example for this, but nature documentaries. If we take a look at this short clip from David Attenborough's "Frozen Planet"

Like all of his previous documentaries, he will get hands on and will fully explore the area he is presenting. In this clip he is exploring how a penguin attracts mates. He starts off by introducing why its times for penguins to make a nest and how many are doing so. The numbers given is that around 5 million penguins will be buildings nests. He then fully explores the facts by showing how penguins attract a mate by building a nest of rocks. He also shows that penguins will steal from each others nests rather than building one from fresh. If he was subjective he would be guessing to why they are making piles of rocks instead of directly telling the audience why, like he does in this case. He would then go on to say whether he agrees with whats on instead of explain with the truth.

My last example is from a recent documentary The Mafia With Trevor McDonald. Throughout the documentary he focus' solidly on the different mafias and the facts without putting his own opinion into the mix. He explores different mafias by looking into their past and often states facts and figures about those involved; he also doesn't jump in and then say what he thinks of these actions. Instead he questions the people themselves about their lives and what they were thinking at the time without judging them. This allows the audience to make their own choice about the those involved instead of getting a stereotyped view of all mafias and gangs and bad people. Although it seems biased at first because they only speak to the Mafia; through the question and interviews we can see both sides in the Mafia. Those who chose this live as a living and are proud alongside those who regret getting involved. He meets those who use to be in the business and those who are still in the life to fully explore a sensitive and dangerous subject. If he started to include his opinion in his question, he would be putting his life in risk as those he is interviewing have a life of crime. Not only could he get hurt; the entire crew could be hunted down for one persons comments.

For more problems with objectivity see the following sections above. As objectivity has links with all of them. My quote this time comes from the Vice President of India: " Certain media-related developments in the country are raising questions regarding its objectivity and credibility. Paid news and the declining roles of the editors and their editorial freedom is posing a major threat to the Indian media." Although its not the UK its easy to see how objectivity can be ignored in the worlds media. Once you start moving away from the truth it because a major problem for a nation. As in this case corruption from those high in the chain is responsible in India; yet the reasoning can still be applied worldwide.

Subjectivity

Subjectivity is the complete opposite of objectivity; instead of making judgement based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices to certain topics. subjectivity is making judgements based on personal feelings and opinions. The main difference is that subjectivity focus on the thoughts of people rather than the facts. Instead of allowing the audience to make their own decision, a subjective factual programme will use a controversial topic to persuade and form an opinion rather than presenting the truth through facts which an audience can adapt into their own opinion. This means programmes will be biased as you can present the topic in any way you want. This is why the news stays objective in order to avoid controversy. Unlike the other areas we look at earlier ,balance, subjective forms a more one sided view.

Without another side to the story the audience is being mislead into a mindset that does not allow for open thinking. Which can cause problems such as the FOX having a political preference which had a knock on effect of Americans becoming Polarized by the news.This is ultimately seen during the following clip (see link for details)

(Image from)

The important thing to remember about subjectivity is that you must state that its only your opinion otherwise viewers sense biased implications; which can have a knock on effect of what the audience take away and whether they tune into the programme again. As opinions are not necessarily a bad thing, although if there is no context or balance then thoughts become one minded. There has been many instances where factual programmes have offered a biased/subjective point of view. One documentary that is subjective is a documentary film that uses mix of found footage and shot footage, "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore explores the ex president George W Bush and his involvement in the War on Terror:

Throughout the documentary Moore uses a voice over alongside the footage to a allude to various scenarios developed by Moore. Of which he presented them in a way which caused controversy as his opinions and feelings caused mass dispute over the accuracy of his ideas. As he states that the American media encouraged the 2003 invasion of Iraq; although he didn't supply any accurate or factual evidence when speaking in his voice over. Other events allude by Moore includes the idea that friends and allies of George W Bush work with Fox News to rig the election in his name and suggested there was several cases of election fraud with one state involved being Florida.

Because Moore so often makes statements that have no factual back up, the audience becomes very aware and start to question the bias of what Moore is doing. Which is what lead to the complaints that the accuracy in the documentary was lacking. It also shows that without the view of both sides and objectivity the credibility starts to slowly decrease, moving away the audience. If any thing without the hard facts and credibility of the sources it turns more into a conspiracy story rather than an "uncovering into political secrets".

This can also be said for any other Micheal Moore documentary's as his style is to find a subject where he can put his opinion in place and created a story around it. Rather than finding a story of fact. Although it gets more people talking, the facts used in his programmes are not always true; and sometimes if they are they are used out of context in order for Moore to further push his opinion onto the public. Which is misleading and harmful to the audience as although they get to see a different view point on a topic; they are not presented with a balanced argument.

This is further seen in Moores questioning style as his questions are used to force an answer relating to his mind set for example in Bowling for Columbine : (1 hour 13 minutes) "Why do you think we have so many gun murderers in America? " before asking do you think there is a lot of murderers in America? He uses strong worded language to get his opinion from others. Its also interesting that in order to proof his point Canadians don't murder he asks one person whether "he knows any murderers" instead of looking into the facts he asks one person to further have his subjective opinion come across. For more details on the effects of subjectivity in factual programming see the sections above.

One really good quote to sum up subjectivity is "I personally think honestly disclosing rather than hiding one's subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism. But no journalism - from the most stylistically 'objective' to the most brazenly opinionated - has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence, and verifiable data." Although this quote is by Glenn Greenwald who works with journalism it has its involvements in factual programming as the news is a piece of journalism. ( Glenn Greenwald is an American Lawyer, journalist and author who writes for The Guardian). The quote sums up that as a piece of subjectivity and objectivity is requited to give a real meaning to the story. As its okay to have strong opinions and feelings as-long as its fully backed up by balance and accuracy. Without it you either have an educational objective piece in which you can judge for yourself, or a subjective piece of factual programming that's based off opinion alone rather than a backed up piece of work.

Opinion

Throughout the essay I have been exploring how the other various concepts can lead to opinion having a biased and unbalanced view on a subject area. Because I have already looked at this area in detail, this section will include a summary of my findings, whilst also using older examples.

An opinion is someones view point on a certain topic.A persons opinion can be based on fact or on anything they may of come across. A passive audience is one that takes media and uses it to create their own opinion. This often means a persons opinion might favor one side of a story other another. Which means producers have to get a wide range of opinions included into the news/factual programme in order to keep a balanced and unbiased view point. As the viewer should be able to see both sides and then decided for themselves where they stand. This is why news reporters will stick to the facts and allow the general public, who have no background with the case, to offer their opinions on the news story through a vox pop. This can be seen in a students recreation of a typical news piece on Youtube:

The piece explores how newspapers are slowly being replayed by other methods of viewing. The piece starts with a fact saying how news is moving away from traditional methods and gets a wide variety of people answering the question. Instead of having loads people saying they all go online, the piece has been included in a way so a variety of opinions can comes across; widening the subject area. In this case many people would discuss what paper they read if they do in fact read a newspaper, others explore what sites they get the news from and others will state they barely read the news but will check the TV every now and again.Not only does this mean the presenter doesn't get accused of corruption or biased, this method of getting opinions across is done in a fair way. A simple way to look at it is without opinions you have a stack, but with opinions the stick becomes a branch as your idea is starting to widen out by looking at all the other viewpoints.

For instance we saw earlier how opinion can caused a one minded and single tracked factual programme: "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore explores the ex president George W Bush and his involvement in the War on Terror:

Throughout the documentary Moore uses a voice over alongside the footage to a allude to various scenarios developed by Moore. Of which he presented them in a way which caused controversy as his opinions and feelings caused mass dispute over the accuracy of his ideas. As he states that the American media encouraged the 2003 invasion of Iraq; although he didn't supply any accurate or factual evidence when speaking in his voice over. Other events allude by Moore includes the idea that friends and allies of George W Bush work with Fox News to rig the election in his name and suggested there was several cases of election fraud with one state involved being Florida.

Because Moore so often makes statements that have no factual back up, the audience becomes very aware and start to question the bias of what Moore is doing. Which is what lead to the complaints that the accuracy in the documentary was lacking. It also shows that without the view of both sides and objectivity the credibility starts to slowly decrease, moving away the audience. If any thing without the hard facts and credibility of the sources it turns more into a conspiracy story rather than an "uncovering into political secrets".

(Image from)

This can also be said for any other Micheal Moore documentary's as his style is to find a subject where he can put his opinion in place and created a story around it. Rather than finding a story of fact. Although it gets more people talking, the facts used in his programmes are not always true; and sometimes if they are they are used out of context in order for Moore to further push his opinion onto the public. Which is misleading and harmful to the audience as although they get to see a different view point on a topic; they are not presented with a balanced argument. If we had more opinions rather than a voice over with only one opinion you would be able to understand where Moore is coming from. It also adds more balance to the story as you cannot go around stating what you think happened without producing physical evidence in the form of a fact.

You must also be careful who you ask for opinions, in the first example the general public normally have no biased towards a topic unless they are involved in something similar or that news event. Unbiased opinions make the programme more authentic and the audience actually take something away from the programme themselves without being forced by a one way mind. Take the recent 7 political party debate which took part on ITV; the example which we looked at earlier in balance:

During the live broadcast of the debate, a group of the public (who had no political bias) were sat in a room. During the debate if they liked what they were hearing from one of the leaders they would vote it up. This would then change a line graph that was currently being update. This meant that the show was fully balanced as not only did they have 7 different view points on the same subject of becoming prime minster. Those involved in making choices rated everyone fairly, as they had no outside knowledge, where general members of the public and had no one to influence their choice apart from the current people debating. If the show was unbalanced and bias then the members voting would of been from the parties being grilled. Although, due to precautions this was avoided.

One last thing to remember about using opinions is asking a wide/diverse ethnic and audience. There's no point getting questions of one social, racial class etc... by getting a mix not only do you get more accuracy into what the public think but it also helps with widening the subject and being unbiased.Take the vox pops we looked at earlier, in the video a wide range of people in age, gender, social class and race were all asked the same question. If you were to go out and ask one group of people, say the upper class for example "What do you think about the current benefits system" those who are upper class will have a different opinion to those who are lower in the hierarchy.

(Image from)

My quote for this section comes from Sir David Attenbrough, a man who has spent the majority of his life exploring the world creating interesting and entertaining documentaries on nature; alongside other works such as history " In the old days... it was a basic, cardinal fact that producers didn't have opinions. When I was producing natural history programmes, I didn't use them as vehicles for my own opinion. They were factual programmes." Not only does the quote suggest that producers are no longer producing factual programmes, but are producing mouth pieces for their own opinions it suggests that opinions should not be included in a factual program. As what people think and say moves away from the solid foundation of the truth.

Bias

Throughout the essay I have been exploring how the other various concepts can have knock on effects of being biased/ one sided. Because I have already looked at this area in detail, this section will include a summary of my findings, whilst also using new examples.

Bias is a personal motive where you favor one side of an argument over another. I.E when a parent might defend the actions of their child at school because of the way they see the child at home. They see it from the perspective that no matter what their child is perfect in every way; ignoring that facts over personal opinions. Although it is common for the newspaper industry to favor political parties, for instance the Sun supports Conservatives, factual programmes should try their best to avoid using bias in there products. As by being biased in a documentary/programmes can cause audience backlash which could also create a great deal of hassle for the channel and the broadcaster. For instance, the BBC has a role in being impartial but doesn't always stick to it; which also has the effects of offence and mass debate.

Being bias also means that you unfairly look at someone/something in order to get your own point across. Like we saw with Fox News earlier, who had political bias in their programming; this next example looks at host (Bill O'Reilly) from the Fox News section "The Reilly Factor"

This video explores Bill O'Reilly responding the criticism over his comments made towards the opposition on gay marriage supports when he said they needed to do more than "thump the Bible" in order to win an argument. To help his case he invited on a women called Laura Ingraham to support his case; which is the first sign towards his personal bias. Infact, instead of supporting him, Laura told Bill he was wrong. To make matters worse, everytime she tried to make a point O'Reillly began to shout over her telling her "I'm disappointed in you". Not only is this bias because he's taking his own opinion into his hands and not others; he repeatedly attempts to deny access to a fair argument by attempting to silence her thoughts. Most importantly for a news channel the lack of facts,impartiality and hard evidence make the show highly biased. Which begins to support claims that America is becoming polarized by one track minds. This isn't the first time Bill O'Reilly takes his opinion into his own hands and ignores the other side of the argument:

This time O'Reilly is more aggressive and begins to breakdown in an angry rant. The video alongside the clips of Bill O'Reilly explores how one minded and bias Bill is towards his own perspective without listening to the other two people contributing to the argument. In the clip from Fox News, Bill O'Reilly unleashes a one sided argument against the promise's Obama made. After insulting the others on the show he attempts to apologize the next day; whilst trying to justify his breakdown but yet still sticking to his own opinion.

Other examples of extreme media bias include the works of Micheal Moore which we covered in Subjectivity and Opinion. My last example of this section comes from a recent political debate that occurred on the BBC. Which saw the main party leaders of the UK (minus the Conservatives and the Lib Dems) have a 5 way debate about common policies:

Again the comments section on the Youtube video comments have been turned off to reduce an bias made in the comments. Yet there was complaints from Nigel Farage that he was being targeted not only by the other leaders (expect in a debate) but by the audience. In fact, Nigel Farage has set lawyers on the BBC after he claims the audience was the majority of the left wing; I.E for labor. A formal letter sent to the BBC asked the following questions to be answered: which company picked the audience, how that company was chosen, what research was done into the company and the political make up of the staff. This was further seen when Farage stated in the debate it was “remarkable, even by the Leftwing standards of the BBC”. After all the audience that pays into the BBC deserve to know how the BBC sets up factual programmes as they want a safe guard in place to protect the audience from bias viewpoints in order to mislead the audience into their way of thinking.

During the live debate, the audience began to cheer for more public spending and defense on immigration; although when Farage jumped in to say the audience was prejudiced and biased he was booed down an silenced. Which is biased in itself. Eventually after looking to the company that chose the company, which was outside the BBC, the majority of the audience was for labour. As in the audience of 200, 58 were Tory, 102 were all left wing parties I.E Labour, SNP, etc... with only 40 undecided. As we saw earlier the audience used in the ITV Labour and Tory debate consisted of an equal audience and for the mass debate between the 7 leaders only those who were undecided got to show their opinions through the live updated graph.

(Image from)

Like ITV the BBC also had this graph during the live broadcast, yet it was done by 20 voters in the studio. Which was, as we found out biased. Because they the audience are being mislead into thinking that its the general public who have no motives are rating the show, when in fact a bias audience is doing so. "Professor Colin Davis, of Bristol University, said the worms can produce as much as a 30 per cent swing in voting intentions." - quote from the Express online. Which not only shows the dangerous sides bias can have over the production of factual programming; but that by simple slip ups in the production of factual programming serious consequences can often arise.

My last quote for this task comes from American politician Curt Weldon: "The mainstream media has its own agenda. They do not want to print the facts. They have an agenda, they have a slant,they have bias. It is outrageous to me". Whilst this isn't a big problem for the UK news; its a serious problem in the American industry. In what should be a factual programme that tells the nation/public the straight facts more and more news programs are being adapted to have blames to target others so one news channel can gain from the destruction, For instance, Fox News's political bias will mean the way they word and report news stories will twist from the truth in other for their one mind thinking to be implemented without giving the audience enough facts and opinion for them to make their own mind up; without changing the channel and looking elsewhere.

Codes and Conventions

Not only are there issues, another common occurrence within factual programming is the codes and conventions applied to documentaries and news programmes. By looking into the individual components of each convention we can fully get an idea of what classifies as a news piece or documentary due to the codes and conventions in place.

News

Studio News Readers

(Image from)

The studio news readers are those that are based on the news set, from where the news is broadcast live. Generally there is two news readers (Also known as news anchors) but sometimes only one person will be reading the news. Studio readers are also usually seen seated at a desk with a window behind them looking out at the city of broadcast or of the researches behind them. For instance, if you look at the image from the BBC above you can see all the TV's and workers in the background. This sub consciously tells the audience the BBC are a hardworking team who work constantly to present up to date news. This can also be seen on other news programmes featured on the channels of Sky and ITV.

Other objects that allude to news readers are the glass of water and stack of papers that are on the desk. This known as Mise En Scene, which is the design aspects related to theatre of film; but can be applied to the news. As the wardrobe is always the same (neat hair cut and a formal dress code ;see later on) the location is always the same (A studio) and the lighting is always the same (even coverage all over the body with a hair light making peoples heads stand out. (See image above).

The framing of the news readers are place also interesting. As they are placed directly in the middle of the frame in a mid shot of their body; as the desk blocks the presenter off from the waste down. This is so the news readers create direct eye contact with the audience as if they are sat opposite each other. There are also two types of presenters, those who read the news with a friendly and approachable face and those who keep a stern a serious look. Both types present a respectable and creditable look as you would want to listen to the news from someone who is smartly dressed and looks approachable. On the other hand, the sterner look makes the studio news reader look more authoritative and respectable than a general member of the public. Because the audience see the reader as someone higher up, they put their trust into what he is saying making them more likely to listen to what he/she has to say.

(Image from)

Another code and convention the news readers all follow is the smartly dressed apparel. Men will generally where suits and ties whilst the women wear either a smart dress or shirt and blazer. This is done so they appear professional. This is because if they look formal and smart the audience is more likely to listen to what they have to say. As they appear trustworthy and authoritative. Alongside the neat appearance is a neat hair cut which further aids the news reader in looking professional and presentable.

(Image from)

For instance you wouldn't trust what this man is telling you, if he was dressed in a manner like the picture. As the outfit he is wearing does not look authoritative or presentable; the make up and the disturbing outfit for a man would make the audience feel uncomfortable. Which would not only mean they wouldn't trust what he is saying, they may turn off completely. Which is why the codes of smart dress is a set in place for studio news readers.

Posture is also important for a studio news reader. News readers are normally seen with their hands on top of the test or with their hands crossed. If they were slumped over with their hand on their heads then it would give the appearance of the reader being bored; which would show the viewers that they are unprofessional. Which would make viewers turn off due to lack of trust in the reader. By having the proper posture (mentioned above) it helps presenters address power; which together along with them directly looking at the screen helps them demonstrate to the audience that the information is present, accurate and trust worthy.

Most importantly, the job of the studio news reader is to open the program, read the headlines and read the links to any live/ pre recorded reports. Whenever the presenter is speaking about a news topic they will read the headlines in a mono tone whilst keeping a straight face. This is to reduce any interest or biased in the subject. As they main job is to present the news in a professional and direct manner without including their own personal prejudice. For instance at the start of the program the studio news reader will say: " Welcome to (Channel Name) news at (Time of Day). Today's headlines". Some programs may also cut straight to the headlines in the introduction. Which will then cut into the news title screen. When the presenters are signing off they will often turn to each other a smile, then say goodbye to the audience, whilst shuffling through their papers on the desk. This can been seen in a typical ITV news piece:

One last thing to notice about the news is that on the national news their will be a typical "British Accent" and the language and vocabulary used by the reader will be clear and formal. There will also be lots of jargon (specialist vocabulary) used by the reader; for instance when talking about a story on war you would expect the following terms: warfare, guerrilla, military, extraction etc.. etc... Where as the studio news readers who are presenting in specific areas I.E ITV Tyneside; regional accents are expected. Yet, they will still maintain a clear and informative tone in their voice.

Field Reporters

(Image from)

Field reporters are very similar to studio news readers, although there are lots of differences. For a start field reporters will report live from location adding extra coverage to the headline read out of the studio news team. This is where the term "Field Reporter" comes from as they out gathering news out in the "the field". The field reporter will also be focusing on just the one news story, whereas the studio news team will cover a wide variety of news reports through headlines and links to other people and features. The field reporter will often be one of the following: a correspondent (whether it be sports or political etc.. etc..), or an on the scene reporter (I.E journalist or commentator). If someone is a foreign correspondent then they are out on location in a different country from the origin of broadcast. The field reporter will be out in location relating to the news story in order to get extra coverage to widen up the topic area.

Field reporters also have a requirement to be formal and professional; like the studio news readers as otherwise they hold no authority over the audience. Who if not impressed by the appearance of the reporter may not take the news seriously and begin to lose the channels/broadcasters trust. Although they may not always where a suit and tie; depending on the location reporters will still dress for the occasional in a formal way.

For instance take this behind the scenes clip from a report on Ebola in Sierra Lione. Because the reporter is reporting live from a hot country; she is wearing a formal shirt and long white formal trousers. This is so she doesn't overheat and easily get dehydrated whilst reporting. If the location was somewhere colder and more dense like a city than a suit and tie/ shirt and blazer would be more appropriate.

It is also interesting that in certain locations where she was reporting it was a high risk zone for ebola. So in order to protect her own health whilst reporting she suits up like the processionals. Not only does this still suit the formal requirements as she is dressed to match actuality; she is also wearing the correct gear in order to protect her life. As no matter what, health and safety must come first. If she was still dressed in her short shirt and trousers then she would not be dressed for the occasion which would put her life in danger and may anger the audience.

(Image from)

Another instance of field reporters dressing for the occasion is when they go out to war zones to report. Again they will be dressed to match the actuality with protective gear over their clothing (Usually smart shirt trousers) in order to make sure they are not hurt live whilst reporting.

The reporter will normally begin his piece when then the studio news reader will say "We now go live to (Name of Presenter) who attended the event (Name of Event). The reporter will then go to report his piece which will involve what he's learnt out in the field and how it effects the news story. Once his piece is done they will say "Back to the studio" linking the two pieces together to form one news story. For instance lets take a clip from a typical BBC news piece:

(4:48-7:23)

The main news story they are looking at today is China's overall market growth since 2013. To get a better understanding of the figure 7.5% market growth they cut live to Beijing to live field reporter David Wilder who is from Market News International. He gives his take on the figures and explains why the figure is the way it is. He also answers questions based by the studio news readers to give a bigger understanding of the topic.

Field reporters also tend to have a more indirect mode of address compared to a studio news reader as they are reporting on the thigns around them. For instance you might have a live field reporter at a football game who would draw attention to the stadium, the players and even the crowd.

(Image from)

Another good example of a field report comes from WINK news, an American news channel, who is reporting live in formal attire live at the scene of a crime. Throughout the report who goes on to explain whats gone on by referring to the locals and footage around him. During field reporters, the reporter may sometimes speak to people on the scene to get a further understanding of what is going on. In this case he interviews a witness to the scene; in order to get a better understanding of the event that has just occurred.The main story in this report is about the two deputies injured in a car chase. Again, because the area is warm he is not wearing a suit; instead a smart shirt and tie to show the signs of his professionalism as a field reporter. Instead of linking back to the studio, he uses an end line which describes who he is and who he reports for.

My last example comes HD channel 5 news in American. Mike Rodgers is the channels main sports reporter who will go to live games and, behind the scenes sporting events and training seasons to get the latest sports coverage. For example when talking about the American Football team the Titans he will report live from their stadium which will sometimes still have the players and fans in crowd; or may just have the linesman preparing the pitch for the next game. This video includes highlights of Mikes reporting but given the standard of field reporting its more than likely he spoke to the crowd around him. For instance in one report he is reporting from Downtown Nashville in the Bridgestone Arena with a busy crowd behind him; whilst he is reporting about an upcoming game. Giving a nice summary to the codes and conventions of the field reporter in the news.

Interviewing

Interviewing is done in the news to extract information relating to the topic they are currently reporting on. For instance the news channel may be interviewing an expert on their opinion on a statement presented to them. For instance a scientist may be ask do you agree with the statement: "Eating too much red meat will cause colon cancer?". Or a local citizen may be ask their opinions, in a form of a vox pop. on a recent topic such as "What do you think of house prices?" which can then also be asked to a wide variety of other citizens to further explore the subject. Anyone can be interviewed as long at it relates to the subject, instead of having the public present the news themselves; an interview is done because it offers a more informative and interesting approach to the subject. It also allows the media to show a balanced point of view as they asking someone outside of the company to give their thoughts on a subject. Granting a wide point of view to be created.

Within interviewing there is a series of techniques and conventions used, to which I will explore and break down with examples from the industry.

(Image from)

Interviewers Appearance:

One of the recurring elements in the news is the way the way readers and reporters dress. This carries though to interviewing; the representative from the news will often be dressed in a formal attire with the standard suit and tie/ smart dress. This is done to show the authority in the interview; as the representative from the news will be the person in charge of the interview. The formal attire also shows the audience that this is a professional interview; as they look the part and are asking serious questions. Although, in an interview there is a often a wide range of facial expressions unlike the studio news team and reporter who speak in a clear, non accent monotone.

(Image from)

Interview Location:

Interviews will often be done in a variety of places depending on factors such as availability of the interviewee and the chosen subject area. There are four possible types of interviews that can take place. The first is in the studio which may be broadcasting live; say the topic was about the finical rates of banks. The news team may chose to interview a repetitiveness from the finance industry to find out more about what these rates mean and the affects it could have on the general public.

The next type of interview links in nicely to studio as it is the live interview. As you can see in the picture above one of the BBC's news readers is interviewing Richard Ward a representative from Lloyd's bank in London. This is often the case when the interviewee either struggles to get to the location or doesn't have the time to travel to the studio and back. Instead a camera team will go to them in order for distant interviews to take place. Other sorts of live interviews include witness in field reports; like we saw earlier in the WINK news clip ,field reporters will often try and get interviews with those around them to get more than one view point on a story.

The third type of interview is a set up. This is often a pre recorded interview in an area that has been chosen specifically for an interview. If we look at the first picture its clear the interview scenario has been set up in a home; as in the background you can clearly see household objects such as furniture and flowers on the table. This is normally done to make an interview look aesthetically pleasing and will often relate to actuality. Say the news story was about a firm shutting down; which is resulting in workers being laid off. The news team may go to a home of one of those workers and record an interview there. Which is matching the location to the subject; as through the interview they can show empathy as the man being laid off is a standard member of the public who has been effected by hard times. Other instances of set up and pre recorded interviews are film interviews; often the film poster will be in the background whislt the cast or director is being interviewed. Which makes the subject to the location. Other things in the background might consist of filming and sound equipement to further alude to the subject matter.

The last style is pre recorded; we have already explored how pre recorded matches in with set ups but pre recorded can also match with the studio interviewing. Pre recorded interviews will often occur when their is timing issues with the guest; so instead they film at a time when its comfortable with everyone it will then be edited and shown later when the studio news team will link the two together.

Equipment Set Up:

(Image from)

Every interview will often follow a similar set up. For details on the lighting in an interview see later on in the essay for more. The main thing to notice is that there is more than one camera. One camera will often feature on the interviewer whilst the other on the interviee. This is too get both sides of the conversation so when its edited together; they can apply the editing technqiue of shot reverse shot. To recreate the illusion of conversation. (See my blog on editing theory for more details).

Sometimes a a third camera will be used to get a shot from the middle. So both people appear in shot. The shots the camera operator will typically get is either a close up or a mid shot depending on the choice of the director. The cameras are presented at this angle so when the footage goes side by side the eye-lines of the pair match up; which further creates a seamless edit and provides a realistic interview for the audience. In order to get these shots they will have the two involved in the interview sat opposite each other; other things not easy to spot in the interview set up is how they do the audio. Those involved will often wear radio microphones that are hooked up to a transmitter; a receiver will then pick up the audio feed and record it onto an audio recorder such as a zoom microphone.

(Image from)

Noddies and Cut Aways:

Although we have looked at the set up of the iinterview there is often other techniques used in the post production of the interview. When cuts are made during the interview, it often look jumpy and out of place. In order to create seemless edits cut aways and noddies are inserted to patch up the gaps. A noddie is a type of camera shot that is recorded in interviews. A noddie shot will often consist of nodding and other forms of listening gestures. These take place during the interview; although if there is only one camera available they are often recorded after the interview has taken place. These shots will then be used in the editing process to cover up any cuts. This shot is used so the audience can understand a sense of realism as it looks like a standard part of a conversation.

Similar to noddies are cut aways. Although instead of cutting to people responding to the other dialogue; cut aways will often be external footage that relates to the topic. For instance if the news team was interviewing a famous athlete they may cut to footage and images of them in action whilst the athletes dialogue plays over the top. Again this is used to create seemless edits; whilst also being used to avoid jump cuts.

Lighting:

Lighting is also a very important concept to get right during an interview. The lighting set up that can be commonly used in an interview is the 3 light set up.

(Image from)

The first light we use in the set up is the key light. The key light is the initial light source which is used to light up the subject. Although the key light can cause lots of dark shadows that mainly cover the subject. To counter balance this the fill light is used which softens the shadows and makes the subject appear lighter. Finally, the back (Also known as the hair light, as it brings out the details in the hair) light is used to show of the 3D nature of the subject and makes the outlines really stand out. Put these 3 together lights together and it gives a really nice looking, clear and detailed, shot.

Interview Examples:

Now that I have looked into the several elements that make up an interview typically seen on the news; lets take a look at some examples. Take the first example of an interview from BBC news that explores Daniel Radcliffes new role in the stage show: " The Cripple of Inishman"

(1:21 start)

The interview starts with Radcliffe summing up what the show is about and why it works. When Radcliffe begins to explain what his character is about, cut aways to images of him on stage appear on screen which then fades from a close up to a wide shot of the pair sitting down. Throughout the interview the shots cut from close ups of Radcliffe, wide shots of the two sat down (To capture the hand gestures of Radcliffe) and an over the shoulder shot over Radcliffe in order to see the interviewer. Although there is a lack of presence of noddies as the main close ups are only on Radcliffe and not on the interviewer. Instead cut aways to images and clips from the theatre stage are used instead to patch the gaps. It is also clear that they are using the typcial video set up for an interview as during the wide shots you can see by the way they are sat; that they are at angles for the interivew. Then when you see the overall video you can tell in the composition of the shots how the interview has been set up. The main light source in the interview comes from the lamps in the background so in that sense it doesn't follow the typical lighting set up. Although, there is also detail coming from the pairs hair; which means a hair light is present in order to do this. So there is at least 3 light sources present in the interview.

The next example comes from the BBC, in the interview they are looking in a young girls life experience. The young girl is Malala Yousafzai who has recently an activist for female eduction in Pakistan. She is also the youngest person to receive a Nobel Prize laureate.

The interview explores life in Pakistan from a young girls point of view. She explores the areas where the women in the house would focus on looking after the children and family rather than going off to School. Other instances explain how she managed to get an education and became involved in a taliban attack onto the school "Diner" which is similar to the a UK school bus. In the attack she was attacked and shot; suffering wounds whilst also losing the ability to work. It was throughout the attack was caused by girls going to school. The interviewer is wearing the smart and formal attire like mentioned before and will often use follow up questions to get more information out of the subject.

There is also a use of noddies in the work; alongside transitions. The noddies featured are the traditional nodding along to what the subject is saying. The equipment set up is also the same as the Daniel Radcliffe's video as Malala has her eye lines looking to the left and the interviewer's eye lines looking to the right. The shots featured are close ups of the pair in the interview but also there is the occasional mid over the shoulder shot from the interviewers side looking to Malala/mid shot of them talking on the sofa. Which hints to at least 3 cameras being used to record the interview. Again one of the main sources of light in the front room is the lamps. Which suggests that the interview has been set up in Malala's home; which adds more personality to the interview.

The final news piece comes from ITV. In the video there interview is split up into segments and includes pieces from various people. Instead of looking into serious matters like the previous example, the story covers how Slyvia Anderson (Creator of Thunderbirds and the voice of Penelope David Graham (The voice of Parker) react to the latest computer generated version of the show:

The interview is mixed into the report which begins to play after the headlines. The report begins with footage from the show that was aired during the run in the late 1960's. A voice over then kicks in showing footage from the latest regeneration. It then cuts to Slyvia Anderson's home which is full of Thunderbirds merchandise and family photographs which helps add to her personality. It is also clear that the interview has been set up to show this as they chose to go to her house specifically. The interview explores how she can still recognise her original ideas in the modern adaptation and whether she thinks its right to adapt over the years. You get to see the different angles Sylvia is speaking from although there is no cuts to the interviewer. Instead close ups track Sylvia's movement and her responses to the questions which have been cut out in the edit. However, the interview offers cut aways to mask cuts; with the main source of footage coming from the 1965 TV show.

Only the best bits are took from Sylvia and her dialogue often plays over the top of the footage. After this is, it cuts to David Graham who explores what he thinks of the new series. Which lasts around 10 seconds. In this case the interviews have been used as a mini feature to build up the main report. It will often not use all the codes and conventions of an interview but harness elements to build up a chronological order with the opinion of the pair built in around it.

Experts and Witnesses

The news will often focus on interviewing two specific types of people; these are experts and witnesses. News channels with use experts to give a respectable and authoritative view on niche subjects such as politics, economy, science, etc... Experts will stick to giving facts and figures to back their logic behind their responses. On the other hand, witnesses are more about giving reliable sides to the story as they are giving their opinion on what they saw. Which is nice to go alongside news story's as it can often add more coverage in the early stages of the news report; until the facts are released on what actually happened.

These two types of people could also be interlinked to create a solid news report. Say for instance a murder is being reported, the news might interview a witness who last saw the person and then the news may cut to an expert who explains what they found on the body using medical terminology. Throughout the essays we have looked at examples relating to experts and witnesses; which I will now look at again.

Take this clip from the BBC news for instance:

Another good example of a field report comes from WINK news, an American news channel, who is reporting live in formal attire live at the scene of a crime. Throughout the report who goes on to explain whats gone on by referring to the locals and footage around him. During field reporters, the reporter may sometimes speak to people on the scene to get a further understanding of what is going on. In this case he interviews a witness to the scene; in order to get a better understanding of the event that has just occurred.The main story in this report is about the two deputies injured in a car chase. In order to get more coverage about the story the field reporter questions a local on what he saw. The man being interviewed was on hand at the scene who then explains his side of the story; this then helps contribute to the story by removing false theories been put in place. As after all they had someone live on scene; they also have no bias so are more likely to be telling the truth to what they have witnessed.

My last example comes from an ITV report, which informs car users that tyres need be correctly inflated in order to prevent accidents and breakdowns.

The report begins with visual imagery relating to the topic, in this case shots of cars driving on the motor way. After the scenic and animated shots facts are stated by the reporter who announces the new law based on the PSI inside of car tyres. A man from the TMPS (Tyre Pressure Monitoring System) then explains using technical jargon how the sensors work (1:04), it then cuts back to the reporter who builds on the story.

The report then focuses on an independent tyre fitter who has become an expert over the years in his job role. He then explains what he does to get the measuring of the tyre inflation. The last shot is of the main expert in the piece who comes from the National Tyre Industry. He explains the benefits of the system which gives the audience a trust worthy understanding of why this law is being implemented. Which can often make the audience who are worried and unaware of these subjects reassured as they are hearing from specialists. See accuracy and balance earlier on in the essay for more details.

Report structure

A news report is a detailed breakdown of a news headline. It covers the main points (who,what,when, where and why) to a story in a structure and logical way. The best way to understand this structure is by looking a comical version created by Charlie Brooker, who breaks down the news in his parody show "Weekly Wipe":

However, I will now break down Charlie Brookers comical approach and apply it to a standard topic covered by the news. Say for instance a news report on gas prices.

A standard news report will begin with the news reader announcing the story and who its by. For instance "John Bates has this report". The report will then cut to an establishing shot of where the story/reporter is based. In this instance the location is London as we see a shot of Canary Wharf. This shot will change depending on the location. The report then cuts to the reporter in the given location walking towards the camera using hand gestures to punctuation his sentences. The reporter will ignore all those around him and will stop at a given point and pose a question to the camera. For instance the reporter may say: "Its no surprise that gas prices are starting to increase; but what are gas companies doing to make gas cheaper and more available to the public? "

This is then often followed by a series filler shot to give the audience something scenic to look at whilst the reporter carries on his/her piece. After a while one of these shots might zoom in and change in appearance to which is overlaid with text. This text will be the facts picked to help assist the report. The facts will not appear all at once; however each fact will fade in one below the other. For instance facts for our report could include: "In 2012 there was 40% more sources of gas available", "Of those sources 85% was owned by British gas companies". After the facts have appeared on screen more shots of the public are included which will often focus on mid shots of the bodies rather than close ups.

After the close ups the next section is about interviewing the general public on their opinion this is known as vox pops (I.e voice of the people). In the vox pops, the news team will get a wide range of opinions around the subject area. In terms of my example the public may be asked: " Have you notice a change in your gas bill, how do you feel about this?". Other questions could include: "What do you look for in a gas supplier?". The team will then get a wide variety of choices and in the edit the best selection will be chosen.

After hearing from the public the report will shift to more filler shots and then go into some footage of a person suffering from the news topic. For instance there is a shot in the video about a man opening letters and explaining his problems. In this case it could be a man who is unable to keep up with his gas bill because the prices are too high. After exploring a general public's experience a series of graphs and animations take place further building upon what the reporter is saying. For instance the a graph may appear with the cost of gas prices changing over the years. This is the stage where the report begins to end; the ending filler shots are back on the public and the area around them. The end shot will feature the reporter summing up the report whilst offering a visual gag to accompany their sign off. This breakdown of a report can be applied to most examples we have covered for other codes and conventions.

Documentaries

Like any type of programme genre, documentaries also use a variety of different formats, The 3 formats I will be exploring are realism, dramatization and narrativization.

Realism

The realism format of documentary are those that present the truth the way it is without manipulating the truth to create drama and tension. Their aim is present a representation of the truth in an interesting and educational way. They are always based on real life events and will be shaped and created by the individual behind the documentary; types of documentaries that come under the format of realism often include fly on the wall/observational style documentaries such as nature documentaries. The best way to explore the codes and conventions of this format is to look at documentaries that come under this subject:

Dynamo Magician Impossible

This first example is from the fly on the wall series: "Dynamo - Magician Impossible". The documentary follows Stephen Frayne going world wide to perform his magic tricks for the general public. The first thing to notice is that the only voice over is coming from Stephen himself. A voice over is were a specialist, person involved in the production or a voice artist will patch gaps in a production so the final piece makes sense; often explaining whats going on. The reason the voice over only comes from him in this case as its follow his journey; so we expect to hear and see things from his point of view.

Also notice the use of text in the documentary. Text is a simple convention used across all documentaries as a caption. Often providing extra details such as location, time and date. It is a quick and cheap way of conveying information; as it easily stands out on screen.

The main thing that is apparent through the whole documentary is the use of real footage; none of the footage is staged in a cinematic way. In the start of the documentary we see the shaky footage of the camera men rushing around to capture footage. There's also screenshots of paper and other clips from media formats such as YouTube inserted to begin the documentary. The first clips we see of the general public running to a bridge only to hear a variety of people speaking and the background noises. Although sound has been added to create a more dramatic effect; the background noises are very real and have made their way in through the un-staged footage. If it wasn't following a realism format than the ambiance would of been removed and plastered with the sound track. Instead of having a mix of the two.

As you can see the main codes and conventions unraveled so far is un-staged and shaky footage, as camera teams will be constantly trying to follow the adventures of Stephen Frayne. The background noise easily makes it way into footage as they are focusing on capturing as much as they can whilst following their subject; whilst also trying to get a grasp of the location around them.

The series begins with Stephen giving his summary of who he is and what he aims to do. The first location he visits is Miami which is followed by a text screen to further add more detail to where they are:

Again we get actuality shots of the location and we can instantly hear the hundreds of people talking in the background, the sounds of water hitting peoples bodies, the busy traffic and the various vehicles located on the beach. When Dynamo is speaking with the public there is various techniques used when recording footage. The camera operators frequently use the zoom on the cameras to focus on items around them; they will also then adjust the focus whilst the camera is still rolling. This gives the sense of realism as the cameras are out their capturing his every move in a continuous format. If it was staged then there would be various amounts of angles already set up; without the need for the camera operator to refocus the framing and focus on the cameras whilst shooting. For instance here is some screenshots of before and after zoom:

Notice how the camera has zoomed in, to focus on the subject at the given time instead of stopping the camera. Instead the operator continues to roll live. Which could also create the point that realism formats get a wide variety of shots and shot types which can then be cut together to create a story. This can often be said for most documentaries, but is applied frequently to this documentary.

The "scene" then ends with those who have witnessed the magic left amazed by the act; alongside pictures of the magic. One thing to notice about fly on the wall programs is the way they are edited. In this case the shots move from magic act to magic act as the realism/fly on the wall documentary is all about the subject. This means there is no need for a constant narration and allows the narrative to unravel itself through the following of the subject. Last of all for the example; the realism format contains stills and footage relating to the past of Dynamo; which adds more personality to the fly on the wall. Narration by Dynamo then overlies whats in the pictures and gives context to his next magic trick, instead of the documentary making being involved.

Which is the biggest code and convention relating to realism; this style of documentary is as if someone has just picked up a camera and they have started following somebody about. Instead of having an external force shaping the documentary by being involved which whats going on; instead cameras just point to the direction of the action and lets the story unravel itself.

Cops

My next examples comes from the American fly on the wall show: "Cops" which follows an american police work in action. The first thing to notice is the use of text; which gives the context of where the fly in the wall is set as there is no voice over like "Dynamo Magician Impossible". Instead a voice can be heard coming from a police officer who is explaining his experience as if he was talking to a colleague. Alongside this is a text subtitle explaining who he is in a couple of words without him giving an introduction:

Again we have shaky footage as the camera man is set next to the senior officer. When there is something the camera operator wants to focus on; again he will zoom in and refocus whilst the backing sounds add to reality. The footage quality is not always the best, yet the footage is shaky as there is no specialist equipment such as tripods and stabilisers; instead the footage is captured from a small camera team following a police force in America. The types of backing noises that can heard this time is the radio (which features a conversation between the officers about an incident which the senior officer is attending), the sound of the car travelling and police sirens.

For instance, notice how the unexpected path, the speed of the car and roughness of the road can all have an affect on the composition of the shot. In this case the shots contain even more shakiness due to the high intensity of the people the crew are following. At one point the camera man rushes out of the car to focus on the action of a man being told to freeze and stand down. If the camera operator hadn't rushed out of the car then he may not have captured the essence of the moment; yet he would still get a reality of whats going on as the whole aim is following the police force. (1:40 - 1:45). From this point on the focus all remains one shot and uses the conventions of zooming and focusing mentioned earlier on. Because its one shot it shows that reality hasn't been altered and the events happened exactly as they had been recorded.

Notice the change in focus from the police officer to the alleged criminal. Shortly afterwards the camera man zooms back out again to get a wider view of whats going on:

Again from this point on the show continues to use all the codes and conventions mentioned earlier that relate to the format of realism.

Geri Halliwell
My last example is a fly on the wall documentary that shows the emotional journey Geri Halliwell takes after she leaves the Spice Girls in 1998:

Although the video is part 2 of 3. The video still conveys all the codes and conventions we have looked at that relate to realism. For a start, at the beginning of the video we see Geri alone and it appears she is talking to only the camera. However, in the background noises we can hear that she is speaking to her friends about her current state of life and how she feels about it. Like Cops and Dynamo we can see how a narrative is being formed from showing the raw footage of somebodies life instead of creating a story by staging scenarios. Shortly after this, there is a cut to a man who is talking about Geri; it is clear he has started to talk about her after being questioned. Yet the interviewer and the questions have been cut out which is a frequent technique used throughout factual programming. It helps in this case as its as if the film crew are never their and we are witnessing the reality and truth instead of a recreated narrative.

Although, at times there is a voice over to patch the parts the cameras have missed. This voice isn't of Geri but an external force; which at times takes away from the personal aspect of Geri. Moreover, her opinions and way of thinking is saw when the camera is being pointed at her. Instead the voice-over doesn't tell us anything more but where Geri is currently ,geographically, located. This is also interested because no facts or figures are being stated in the voice over or when Geri is speaking apart from the one of quote from Melanie B about her departure. This gives the documentary a sense that its on going rather than the events have already happened. Again, unlike some other formats of documentary that explain the past of the subject throughout the video; Geri explores her life through personal anecdotes which she is often sharing with colleagues and friends.

This is ultimately revealed when Geri is outside speaking to camera. When we see the shadow coming opposite Geri we see two figures. One of the camera operator and one a lady; who's voice often comes from the cameras direction. This could be a friend or colleague of Halliwell as throughout she will often talk to her about how she feels; resulting in the mystery women to respond by telling her how she has been in the past and that her experience with her suggests she is fine and has nothing to worry about. This gives the sense that she is putting her trust in the "camera";yet she is talking to her real trust the woman stood next to the camera. This also allows Geri to tell her story and whats going on without staring directly into the camera.

Alongside the anecdotes, we see a personal and realistic narrative form when Geri talks to those around her. Often it will be her newly found friends or her supportive team following her throughout. Further having the sense of this is directly real life and there is no cameras present. One good example of this is when Geri is deciding about what to say at the UN conference after being elected to help with the "6 billion project" which focus's on the world rapid population and the effects of birth control.

After this talk narration is used again to show the journey from the UK to America where she attends a UN meeting about the subject. This is the point where text becomes heavily used as like the previous examples its used for the location she arrives in. Text is also used to introduce important people Geri meets such as the time "Stirling D Scruggs - Chief of External Relations UNFPA" appears on screen during a conversation between himself and Geri. Alongside the common convention of text; natural backing sounds are frequently heard in the documentary. This becomes obvious when Geri moves from one location to another; in one shot the Star Wars theme is playing from a shop and then it cuts to another location and the backing switches to a busy crowd.

In terms of camera shots; there is only one time when there is multiple shots of the same scene. This is in the UN coverage as it was a big media event they will have shot from more angles to give it its sense of importance and so it looked better in the documentary. Instead of every time someone asked a question the camera operator would have to keep changing the positioning of the camera. There is also more cuts in this documentary as the story comes together when Geri is visiting different parts of the world. If it stayed on one continuous shot then the documentary would be never ending.

However, there is many instance where shaky camera footage and the use of zooms and refocusing can be seen. One instance is during the UN interview, when focused on Geri the operator often changes the shot type from a mid shot to a close up and back again when questions are being asked. Overall, the main codes and conventions that are covered by realism are:

Text for people and locations
Cuts in audio and the natural background ambiance make frequent appearances
Shaky footage and long takes including zoom ins and refocus's
Narration to patch gaps - mainly through the subject or an external person
Lack of presence in terms of the documentary crew
Story formed from the content of the footage rather than set ups

Dramatisation

Dramatised documentaries are those that recreate the truth and real events through the use of actors. This is generally the case when their is no existing footage on the subject. This could range from a documentary on an historic subject; such as the life of Henry the 8th or a recreation of a crime scene for shows such as Crime Watch. The general rule to apply is that any form of recreation is normally classed as a dramatised documentary. This style of format can also be referred to as docudrama. I will now break down 3 examples and explore the codes and conventions like the previous section:

Titanic Recreation

My first example is a great instance where events have been recreated to show to the truth. Due to the lack of technology the sinking and destruction wasn't captured on film when it was destroyed on its maiden voyage in 1911. Throughout the documentary several codes and conventions are used to demonstrate the events that occurred in a creative and informative way. Although this video is in Russian, it has been translated into English.

A big part of dramatization is the use of recreating real life in acting and film. In this case the documentary starts with a series of words appearing on screen over the ocean. This is a different use of text compared to the style of realism, in this instance text is used for dramatic effect rather than as a caption for location and character. Text is used throughout the documentary in creative ways when displaying facts and figures; which is alongside a voice over. Again, a voice-over is another big part in this documentary it is used throughout to tell the narrative through facts and figures rather than opinion. Voice overs are predominant when the live action isn't taking place; instead used to patch the gaps between photographs and animated segments.

A great example of where they use the recreation is not only throughout the documentary, but at important stages in the story that had no real recorded footage at the time of the incident. At the start of the documentary we see a old man writing in his diary, only to get to a port hole opening with water gushing in. In this documentary it is only part one of the story so we do not get to see the Titanic sink. Although there is a great amount of 3D modeling and rendering of the Titanic moving through the water and the iceberg floating still in the vast ocean.

As you can see in the image the narrative is put alongside the 3D model by using overlays created by a lower opacity. This also saves the time of created a one to one scale replica on the Titanic; instead experts can use the latest technology to get a computer generate image of what the Titanic would of looked like. Actors will then recreate the internal scenes by using sets; as if you did computer generated imagery for the whole documentary it would be very expensive to run. Instead they use the codes and conventions of editing and film (see link for more) to reenact important scenes. In this case there was a few shots and images of those boarding the Titanic.

These images are accompanied by animated segments and a voice over stating who was on board the Titanic. Their journeys are then explored throughout the documentary in the narrative recreated by the historical reenactment. For instance there is a found footage shot of the Titanic being built with the voice over stating: "She was huge too - 269m long, with the displacement of 52,300 tons". This is an effective use of found footage as the production team would of had to conduct a great deal of research to get all the accurate information.

One great instance of getting the facts across in an interesting way is when they combine animation, voice over and the facts. In this case animation has been used to create to boat; the water and the timeline underneath was also animated in. Whilst the text dropped out from the Titanic sign. All of this effort was put into display the fact that "The mean draught was over 10 metres".

This is further seen when they create an animation for the path the Titanic was on; although there may have been photos of the maps. The use of animation makes the facts more interactive and the audience take an interest in the truth as it is being brought across by reenactment in an interesting way.

To sum up the code and conventions discovered for dramatization so far are:

Animation is used to recreate key events, accompanied by the facts. In this instance animation is used to pull apart the Titanic which is explored in more detail with a voice over an animated text
A voice over is used but only to convey the facts and figures and not opinion
Actors recreate vital scenes that had no real footage
When recreating scenes - these follow the standard code and conventions of editing
Any salvageable photographs and rare clips are used but as a part of the story and not a side note

Ancient Rome - Nero

A less interactive version of dramatization is by the BBC. Which each week, they would explore a different character from Ancient Rome. In this case they focus mainly on re-enactment instead of showing the facts in animation and voice over. Instead they let the drama do the work of creating a narrative. This episode focus' on the historical figure of Nero, who was the Roman Emperor between 54-68. The overall narrative created through the re-enactment explores the conspiracy to have Nero assassinated, after saving several lives on fire of Antium, and have Garius Calpurnius Piso proclaimed as the new emperor. In anger he kicks his wife to death and Nero leaves Rome. After a rebellion rises up the Senate sentences Nero to death which causes the ruling of Julio Claudian dynasty to come to an end.

Like the first example, this documentary also uses narration but only to add context with the facts. During the actual recreation of events the narrator stays quite and will often patch gaps during the establishing and filler shots. In this case the narrator is talking about the set up of the events. Such as in the beginning he states: "Rome, the age of the emperors" cut to an establishing shot of the location" For the past 100 years to same family dynasty has ruled" which then cuts into the story of Nero. The voice over, like before, is being used to patch the gaps and offer some context to the re-enactments.

Another common convention is the use of text. Although, its not as interactive as the the previous example. Text is used in this case like the realism examples. The first location is Rome and text appears stating the location and date. Similar to this, the example above shows how some of the characters would get text to add little details of context to them without it being explained. This allows the truth to unravel naturally instead of being seen as strictly drama; as in fact its written to be historically accurate.

As seen in the captions given at the start of the programme; it warns the viewer that this depicts real life and isn't 100% fiction.

Although to make it more like a drama; the show has a title screen that features key scenes from the program whilst the theme music plays in the background. This offers a more illustrative example of text whilst the opening titles add to the sense of real life being re-enacted in drama.

Other things that add to the drama is the use of code and conventions from editing and film. Notice the shallow depth of field as the main focus is on Micheal Sheen who plays "Nero" this further adds to the drama as TV shows will often make fictional stories instead of being based on the truth. By using the conventions from these shows it shows of the truth in a way the audience is use to; which is a good way of conveying real life. Which is also why the captions at the front of the show splits the idea that what your about to witness is fiction; when in fact it is non fiction.

Referring back to the voice over; the last time it is heard the narrator sums up the story with a message proclaimed in history. This message is that the Romans were ruling the wrong way at the time; the emperors should not of been born into ruling but instead should of worked their way up fairly. This summary is based on the whats been witness in the documentary instead of personal opinion.

The last thing to pull from this documentary is the use of music. Instead of using actual backing sounds; this documentary uses soundtracks and effects to add to the drama. For instance at the end of the documentary (55 minutes) over the top dramatic music is playing as Nero prepares to kill himself. If this was a realist documentary you would of heard the backing noise of the atmosphere and the people around him instead of a backing track. Other noises are also amplified more to what we would hear in realism documentaries; such as the sound of fires, people walking and the sound of Nero's knife digging into his neck. Overall, the codes and conventions explored in this video are:

The truth and the fact of the matter is conveyed when the narrator is speaking during establishing/filler shots
Actors are being used to recreate real life events
Uses film code and conventions to portray the truth in an interesting way
During the main drama only the actors and not the narrator can be heard
Backing music and sound effects are used to add to the sense of fiction and drama.
Text is used to add captions to characters/real life figures
Captions at the start of the program tell the audience that its based of real life

Road to Guantanamo

One of the most important things we haven't looked at yet is that these formats can all be applied to one documentary. For instance every sort of documentary will have a narrative; which is why it falls under narrativisation; it could also contain scenes of recreation to aid with the story being told alongside realism/actuality shots. Combining all three elements together. My last example for this section does all of this. The narrative being told is how three British citizens where arrested in Afghanistan in 2001. Leading to a follow up of being detained by the USA for over two years in Guantanamo Bay. The documentary features reenactments of the action, real historical/found footage and interviews from the 3 citizens involved.

The first thing to notice is use of text which has been a code and conventions explored throughout the essay. Notice how it has been used for historical context; linking the reenactments to the real life events. Text is also used the first time the three men appear in interviews. The text style shows that design has been considered instead of using basic text in editing software's.

Secondly, the main source of footage used throughout the documentary is the reenacted scenes. This is often given context by an interview in which one of the males will tell the story from his point of view; which will then cut to a actor recreating the situation. One of the big give away's this is a dramatic version of the truth is the use of music. When times are getting tense or emotional music will cut in to ramp up the feelings in the scene. For instance, music was used in a realism documentary earlier on but only in the filler shots and not the main content.

(Around 10 minutes)

Alongside the footage of drama, real life footage is used to patch the gaps. These gaps are often the parts that where made aware to the general public; such as the increase of terrorist action out in the middle east. Which can be seen in the screenshot above; the voice heard during this clip sounds British as if it is coming from a UK news channel. This is very similar to the Titanic found footage; although there is more footage available in this documentary due to the time the of the events. However, re enactments are used to patch the behind the scene gaps of which the public never witness on international TV.

Last of all, the most apparent code and convention used is interviewing. This is very similar to the interviewing section we looked at earlier relating to the news. Although in this case the interviewer is removed;to remove any presence of the interviewer making the documentary focused on those who where involved in the event in 2001. These interviews are used to get a story to follow the actions throughout the documentary. Without these interviews then the recreation of events would be impossible; as they are all from their point of view. Also notice how the background is dull and the use of lightening makes the interviewee stand out; by using a similar lighting set up to the 3 way system. As we can see the hair light in effect as it adds a glistening to his black hair, the left side of his face is much lighter compared to the other half and his skin tone appears shiny as it reflects the light.

Overall the codes and conventions explored in this video are:

Interview techniques are used to get a personal experience out of the three in order to build a strong narrative
A mix of archive footage and reenactments go side by side to create a narrative linked to the story the three males are telling
Use of text for historical reference and use of captions for names and locations
A voice over is bits taken from interviews from the three
Music is used for dramatic effect in a similar style to Nero

Narrativisation

Narrativization is similar to dramatisation; although the truth is used in a way to tell a narrative. For instance fly on the wall style documentaries that follow a group of people in a select location is often manipulate in a way which causes drama and tension. This can often be done with found footage and domain clips; instance of narrativisation can include a documentary covering the subject of the Holocaust. Although there is other styles that can often come under narration. For example reality TV uses documentary styles in the majority of their programs. As the camera footage is edited in a way to give the viewer the impression they are observing people in a very similar way to a fly on the wall. Although "narratives" are often created during the edit/or are planned with the result of drama being created.

Every documentary will tell a narrative; although each one is different in the way of how it goes about the arc. Some documentaries will either focus heavily on the facts or work on creating a story out of the facts. To make this simpler I will look at a few documentaries and explain the codes and conventions they uses in order to tell a story:

Micheal Moore

Bowling for Columbine by Micheal Moore explores the personal opinions of Moore ; who suggests what where the main causes of the shooting in Columbine High School in 1999 alongside the themes of fear created by governments and the link between violence and guns. For instance Moore will look at the background issues around the massacre such as getting a gun from a bank to the link between black people and violence in media. Alongside his opinion, Moore use's selective questioning in order to get his opinion out of others. These interviews/discussion include people such as South Park co-creator Matt Stone, the president of the National Rifle Association and the musician Marilyn Manson. Through out the documentary we see the story from an interactive point of view as the documentary maker is in front of the camera.

The documentary starts by offering an introduction to the narrative. To do this Moore uses a series of found/domain footage of the evolution of guns of the years whilst he offers a voice over with the occasional fact. From what we hear we already know the narrative we are going to follow is through the viewpoint of Moore through the context of what he is saying. In fact there are people out their who often claim what Moore is saying is controversial. After the brief introduction we get footage and images from the Columbine massacre with Moore providing the solid facts instead of his opinion. Already in we have saw recurring conventions of a documentary; in fact any example from before can be covered as narrativisation as all the codes and conventions of a documentary can build a narrative. The main codes we have witnessed so far is voice over, use of found footage and the use of an interactive documentary making instead of being behind the lens.

As we see him go on a journey by exploring the background of the events whilst speak those around him to get a better understanding of the subject. Although, it is often said that his comments and view points in his documentaries are biased towards his personal opinions; instead of letting people have a view point of their own.

One instance of Moore interacting with the background around him is when he approaches a bank about one of its latest schemes. When signing up to a bank account, users will receive a free gun. Within a short period time of being in the bank he soon walks out with a gun free of charge- he even questions whether or not its legal. However, it was found out that the bank normal ships guns to customers instead of letting them walk out with a weapon on the day. Yet its interesting to see how Moore approaches the idea of getting a gun from a bank as he often questions those who provide the scheme; helping him get his point across.

Another good instance of Moore's interactions is the way he talks and interviews people. For instance at the start of the documentary he talks to a group of the military militia about why they think you need a gun in American. A recurring theme from the interview is that a gun is required in American in order to protect your family from an danger. In this first instance Moore's interviewing method is quite open yet further on the in the documentary he becomes more directed and close with his questioning.

His questions are used to force an answer relating to his mind set for example in (1 hour 13 minutes) "Why do you think we have so many gun murderers in America? " before asking do you think there is a lot of murderers in America? He uses strong worded language to get his opinion from others. Its also interesting that in order to proof his point Canadians don't murder he asks one person whether "he knows any murderers" instead of looking into the facts he asks one person to further have his subjective opinion come across.

In the middle point of the documentary; found footage is used again to give more background to the shooting in Colorado. For instance in the screenshot you can see how the CCTV footage is being used to show footage live from when the event occurred. Alongside this there is footage of newspapers and media coverage which is accompanied with a voice over by Moore. Moving back to the subject of Moore's interactions; he often explores the subject by speaking the those involved in the incident. Such as the students who offer their view on the school , allowing the narrative to get a personal story whilst also fully exploring the bigger picture. Another person he interviews is the father of a victim which allows another biased view as he will definitely have a biased against guns; as it killed his child. Last of all he questions the previous president of National Rifle Association. Although, Moore is strong in his questioning which makes the interviewer leave whilst Moore has a face of victory.

To sum up; Moore uses the following codes and conventions in order to build up a narrative:

The edit is done in a way to create a narrative that goes from beginning to end, it strongly supports Moore's argument whilst also creating juxtaposition. I.E putting opposite shots next to each other to create meaning.

Interviewing is used by Moore to fully explore the subject of the effects of guns in America; through the content of the interview it helps build up a narrative which is built together by the editing and the voice over.

The use of found footage gives the video more authenticity and helps show the truth for what it is without having to do recreations like dramatization formats. This also allows the narrative to slowly unravel for the audience as they get to see more of the events as the documentary unravels. As the documentary starts off with reference to the events and is not until the mid point until the full story beings to get uncovered. This is also reinforced with the audio of the emergency phone call to 911.

Animation is used at one point in the documentary in order to to show how incompetent white american men have grown to.

Voice over is used to give authority in the documentary as we only hear from one voice; this is also backed up with the footage of Moore going on his journey to all his different sources of information which is used to built up a narrative.

Music is used at time to add drama to dramatic events such as the scenes from the shooting at the school. Music is also used for irony at times. For instance at the end of the documentary after exploring all the negatives of America the song "Wonderful World" begins to play. Which contracts the whole message of the documentary.

Louis Theroux - Miami Mega Jail Part 2

My next example comes from Louis Theroux who is a well known documentary maker; often testing the extremes by going into dangerous places to find a story. The main documentary we are looking at in this time is "Miami Mega Jail Part 2". Before I break down the codes and conventions used there is one metod Theroux uses throughout all his documentary's. Take this video above, in order to gain a wild variety of information; Theroux acts to know nothing. This is so he can work his way up from the bottom of the story right to the end. It also helps get a sense of character from those he interviews as we get to see them from all angles.

The documentary follows Theroux's journey as he spends time in the Miami hail system. He goes through all stages for the Pre-Trial Detention Center, the West Detention Center, the Correctional Center and the Boot Camp program. Whilst he is on his journey we meet an alleged triple murderer facing the death penalty and a group of people who pleaded guilty and are going through the Boot Camp

(Image from)

The documentary starts with a voice over, the voice belonging to Theroux, in his voice over he states where is he and why he's going on this journey. He states the facts of the system and doesn't make any sort of personal statement to what he thinks of the topic. Instead the voice over is accompanied by actuality footage of the inmates and the jail to give viewers an idea to where the story is going to be. The first person we meet is a 14 year old boy accused of armed robbery whilst we only get a hint to his life at the start; we see how the boy is coping with boot camp at the end of the documentary. Creating a circular narrative within a narrative simply by going back to the same location we a different interview. This is done with a lot of inmates throughout the documentary; with each personal story creating their own separate narrative.

For instance we see how an alleged triple murderer copes with his life inside of jail. The first time we see him he is presented in the way to look harmful and dangerous as he creeps up to the window in his cell. We later find out he is struggling with life as he is coming closer to his death sentence. In the mean time he writes stories and sends them to his lover outside of jail to enjoy. Although we are seeing the story of an alleged killer; through the narrative we still form emotions towards him. The same is done for all of the others he interview. This includes murderers, rapists and a drug dealer who killed 3 people. As those 3 people committed mass murder to a group of children. Each individual narrative helps form an overall narrative of what life is like inside of jail and the sort of things that can often get people in their in the first place.Although, unlike Moore, Theroux acts unaware and questions the simplest of details to get a better understanding of those in the jail. He then carries on interviewing others without taking away a message to use for his own opinion on the jail.

For instance Theroux quizzes one inmate about his mind set. As this inmate is being moved to solitary after beating up a psych patient. Through the interview we get a sense of understanding to why he attacked the prisoner; as the questions will often be accompanied by Theroux saying the prisoner is wrong. To which the prisoner will justify his actions; this is often done with all the interviews to get a sense of the inmates of people. Rather than the items they have branded to be.

This interview is also part of the journey Theroux follows with Johnny. This is the first time we see him as he is being transported to solitary/isolated after attacking another inmates. Instead of leaving the story their, Theroux comes back to see his journey from solitary to the bunks. Whilst in the bunks we get to hear from a group of inmates on how they see the system of jail and how it works. We then see the personal narrative come to an end when Johnny admits to his accusation showing the complete arc of the character created in our minds. Because Theroux used frequent questioning at various time periods; we get a deeper understanding. As we could easily making judgement of one of the encounters.

However, he doesn't create a full narrative by looking at the personal stories; he also interviews the guards. Although he questions them with open question on jail as a whole rather than themselves. This is so the topic of life in jail remains the central story. Some of the topics learnt through speaking to the guards is why the parishioners go through this stages, how prison snitches have to be careful and how inmates will often create shanks out of the simplest of materials.

Another narrative formed is of an imate making his way through boot camp; as Theroux visits the place at least 3 times over the course of the programme. We first see the arrival of the inmates of boot camp and how the guards will need to put on an act to get the authority over the inmates. All the inmates slip up at first; although throughout the programme we see the improvements of the inmates. The second time he visits we look at an "Recycled" patient as he is going back through the jail system due to failure. The last time we explore the journey of someone who came from the 6th floor in the main jail. We see how they have went from an "deadly" inmate to one who has adapted to boot camp life. Where he know acts within the requirements; he if stays on this track then he will soon be able to carry on with his life outside of jail.Like Moore's documentary, music is used at times to add emphasis on emotion and the narrative. Although unlike Moore's documentary music is not used for irony.

Overall, in the documentary the following codes and conventions are used:

When interviewing the guards he treats them as experts and uses open questions in order to find out what goes on in the jail; to get a better understanding he will then speak to the inmates where his questions are more direct and personal. Which creates a narrative in itself.

Voice over will be used to insert some facts or information to where he is going next.

No personal opinion of whats going on; he lets the inmates and guards tell the story for him.

We see the documentary from an interactive point of view like Moore. He will often stay in the same settings but will get the most out of the people there.

Actuality footage is used to get a better understanding of the place before cutting to the interviews and interactivity; it works as an establishing shot.

The narrative is created by visiting the same inmates after a period of time in order to get a full understanding of their journey in the jail system.

Music used at times to add emphasis on the narrative and emotions.

Made in Chelsea

One of the greatest examples (also last example) of a documentary that is set up to create a narrative is Made in Chelsea. There is often stereotypical events that occurred in these sorts of narratives such as fights, arguments, love triangles , gossip and broken friendship.

These shows also follow some unique conventions not saw in the other formats of documentary. For instance you may notice the use of lighting in the clip above; it makes everybody stand out and look the part. The people are also well dressed and wear make up to make themselves look good on camera. Instead of going for the natural look of a documentary. The table is also laid out in a way that makes you focus on the characters rather than the setting. As the top frame contains the upper body of those involved.

This is also seen when the location they are in seems to be posh and exclusive adding a sense of wealth to the characters. When in fact they are standard people that have been set up by the production company. This then creates drama within the group as they will argue about a topic. In this case they are arguing about lovers and faces one of the classic sterotypes of a love triangle/love affair. These sorts of programmes will also use shot types to add to the drama. As when there is tension they will often use close ups shots showing the drama unravel through shot reverse shot. Then when it gets to the action they will use a mid shot showing the outcome of the drama. Overall, the main thing to take away from programmes like these is that the narrative is created through set ups; which are then captured perfectly even though it is reality. As we saw how realism documentary's capture their footage compared to a dramatic reality saw in this programme; which comes under the format of narritivation.

Overall, the codes and conventions used in this programme are:

Those involved are glamorized by composition, lighting and make up.
The area is set up to make the focus shift to the "characters"
The locations used seem posh and exclusive
Scenes are often set up to cause drama within the group
Shot types used to add to dramatic effect

This not only marks the end of this section; but the end of the essay as a whole.

Cameron Harris (L3 Creative Media)

Monday, 27 April 2015

Factual Programming - Theory

Accuracy

Balance

Impartiality

Objectivity

Subjectivity

Bias

Codes and Conventions

News

Studio News Readers

Interviewing

Experts and Witnesses

Report structure

Cops

No comments:

Post a Comment